Re: Why does manufacturing see quality negatively?
It's helpful if you quote at least part of the post you're responding to so that when you say "I don't exactly agree with you" we know what you're referring to without backtracking through the thread.
Sales sells things
Design designs things
Manufacturing/production (whatever) makes things.
Quality does things too, but what?
When there's conflict, it's inevitably because the various functions have different priorities. Sales people make promises that can't be kept, but so long as they keep selling things, they're considered successful. Designers design things without regard for whether or not the things designed can actually be produced; sometimes this is due to the prevarications of a sales person. Manufacturing is faced with trying to make things that can't be made, with schedules that require defying the laws of physics.
Too often the quality department is charged with making sense of it all and trying to protect the best interests of both the customer and "the organization." I might add manufacturing engineers to the mix; they have to design processes that will do the impossible and produce goods far beyond the capabilities of the technology they have to work with.
The key to whole thing was identified a long time ago when Deming wrote those four little words for management: Create constancy of purpose. When there's conflict that people can't control, it means that leadership has failed, and as Deming also said, managers are being paid to make things worse.
Until sales, design, engineering and production are working under the same set of inviolable rules, the quality department will be the enemy. I'll go so far as to say that the reason that quality departments even exist is due to failure of leadership and the worship of short-term performance. If it's all done as it should be done, the quality function as we know it today won't be necessary.
I don't exactly agree with you. I'm hoping that quality is associated with much, much more than "just" production/manufacturing. Actuall y what started me off was that a "newcomer" referred to "production" and not "manufacturing". I don't really associate the word "manufacturing" with many departments in a company. Purchasing, design, planning etc. play a large roll in quality, but I've never thought of them as being part of manufacturing.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
Sales sells things
Design designs things
Manufacturing/production (whatever) makes things.
Quality does things too, but what?
When there's conflict, it's inevitably because the various functions have different priorities. Sales people make promises that can't be kept, but so long as they keep selling things, they're considered successful. Designers design things without regard for whether or not the things designed can actually be produced; sometimes this is due to the prevarications of a sales person. Manufacturing is faced with trying to make things that can't be made, with schedules that require defying the laws of physics.
Too often the quality department is charged with making sense of it all and trying to protect the best interests of both the customer and "the organization." I might add manufacturing engineers to the mix; they have to design processes that will do the impossible and produce goods far beyond the capabilities of the technology they have to work with.
The key to whole thing was identified a long time ago when Deming wrote those four little words for management: Create constancy of purpose. When there's conflict that people can't control, it means that leadership has failed, and as Deming also said, managers are being paid to make things worse.
Until sales, design, engineering and production are working under the same set of inviolable rules, the quality department will be the enemy. I'll go so far as to say that the reason that quality departments even exist is due to failure of leadership and the worship of short-term performance. If it's all done as it should be done, the quality function as we know it today won't be necessary.
Last edited:
